Raul Labrador: The path to citizenship is a minor issue in comprehensive immigration reform; Update: Leahy rules out quick timetable for passage?

posted at 4:41 pm on March 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

Notable, if only because Labrador claimed a few weeks ago that House Republicans would never vote for a path to citizenship. Has he changed his mind? Nope: If you read his earlier remarks closely, you know that he meant they’d never vote for a special path to citizenship, i.e. a new statutory mechanism created specifically for illegals. Granting them legal status and then letting them apply for a green card in the future through normal channels is very much on the table. Which, in fact, is what Rand Paul proposed yesterday.

Small favor: Given deep conservative anxieties that legalized illegals will vote overwhelmingly for Democrats once they’re granted citizenship, could we maybe not dismiss the issue as “minor”? Kind of important politically.

“You guys emphasize the ‘pathway to citizenship’ — we’re talking about a minor issue,” said Rep. Raul Labrador, one of the leading Republican members of a House working group on immigration reform. “The real issue that we’re dealing with is immigration reform.”

“What I think should happen is, anybody who’s here illegally can come out of the shadows, become legalized in some way, have some sort of legal status, and the status could lead to legal permanent residency and citizenship eventually, but just the same as anybody else who falls into that category,” he added.

No, actually, the real issue we’re dealing with is border security. Even most stalwart opponents of the path to citizenship would, I think, relent if Congress could give them real comfort that we won’t be facing another amnesty 10-20 years from now. As it is, I’d bet 95 percent of the rhetoric in the big post-election immigration push has been devoted to the prospective nuances of the citizenship process, not to the border. That makes sense politically given that the whole point of this effort on the Republican side is to build goodwill with Latinos, but the message to border hawks is that their core concern is a pure afterthought. Only Paul’s plan has placed any emphasis on border improvements by demanding congressional ratification of them annually, and like I said yesterday, I doubt Republicans would be sticklers on that even if Paul’s plan did pass. The closer we get to 2016, the more eager they’ll be to ingratiate themselves with Latino voters. Blocking the path to citizenship on grounds that the border hasn’t been tightened enough yet is antithetical to that.

Don’t beat up on Labrador, though. He was one of nine Republican House members on the Heritage immigration panel today and they were all singing basically the same tune. A gleeful TPM reports:

“I thought [Rand Paul] did a very, very good job in talking about and embracing some ideals of dealing with illegal immigration and embracing some of the reform measures my friends are putting together,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said. Duncan has an A+ career rating from anti-immigration group Numbers USA and once compared illegal immigrants to “vagrants” and “animals.”…

“We shouldn’t create a second class group that could never become citizens, but we should also not give them a special pathway that nobody can follow,” Labrador told the audience, adding that any bill also needed border enforcement triggers that would be met before reaching that point.

“I think many of us are willing to consider what Raul just descibed there,” Jordan, the former chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said…

Huelskamp told TPM he could find plenty to like in a comprehensive bill from a conservative perspective — it would boost to his state’s agricultural business, local Catholic leaders support it, and by granting legal status to undocumented immigrants it would be easier to track and prevent them from using welfare benefits.

When asked as a group whether any of them opposed Paul’s call to legalize the 11 million illegals who are here, no one said yes. No surprise there, either, as there’s plenty of momentum for immigration reform in the caucus: Boehner and company can’t stop chattering about their excitement over the bipartisan House plan (Labrador’s a member of the group that’s working on it), which is why the Times is now running pieces like this. I’m still skeptical that reform supporters will be able to ram the bill through Congress, but between reading TPM’s story and hearing that Harry Reid wants the Senate bill on the floor as soon as next month, it’s getting harder to maintain that skepticism. Exit question via Mickey Kaus: Is there really no tea-party champion in Congress who’ll seize the opportunity to impress the base by standing up as an outspoken opponent of this — at least until serious border security is proposed? Where are you when we need you, Ted Cruz?

Update: I’m now cautiously optimistic that Lindsey Graham’s best efforts to get Congress to rubber-stamp the Gang of Eight bill will be thwarted. Says Pat Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee:

Leahy made clear he is not happy that the Gang of 8 is doing its work in secret. “I have favored an open and transparent process during which all 18 Senators serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to participate and to propose or oppose ideas for reform,” he said. “The Majority Leader [Sen. Harry Reid] has agreed that we need regular order in the consideration of comprehensive immigration reform. This process will take time. It will not be easy. There will be strongly-held, differing points of view. Because we do not yet have legislative language to debate, the Senate Judiciary Committee will not be able to report a comprehensive immigration bill by the end of April, which was my goal.”

Leahy’s statement came one day after six of the eight Republicans on the Judiciary Committee wrote him a letter urging that consideration of any comprehensive immigration reform proposal be slowed down considerably. (The other two GOP committee members, Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake, are working with the Gang of 8.) Now it appears the slowdown is happening, whether Leahy wanted it or not.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

If the House GOP passes an amnesty bill(and let’s be honest, that’s exactly what it will be), then kiss that chamber of Congress goodbye in 2014. They don’t even have to wait a decade for those new legal Latino voters to usher in a permanent Democrat majority. The disgust from the base will be so widespread that it’ll be 2006 and 2008 all over again.

“You guys emphasize the ‘pathway to citizenship’ — we’re talking about a minor issue,” said Rep. Raul Labrador, one of the leading Republican members of a House working group on immigration reform. “The real issue that we’re dealing with is immigration reform.”

These guys are tying themselves in rhetorical knots to avoid calling it “amnesty.” I’d have a marginal amount of respect for them if they admitted what they were doing flat out, but instead they are trying to be clever and trick people. But really, is anyone other than an amnesty supporter going to be tricked by this in the first place?

Why not just enforce the laws on the books. My in-laws had to jump through hoops to get citizenship, on top of coming here legally and having two “anchor babies”.
When you selectively enforce the law, the law becomes meaningless.

If the House GOP passes an amnesty bill(and let’s be honest, that’s exactly what it will be), then kiss that chamber of Congress goodbye in 2014. They don’t even have to wait a decade for those new legal Latino voters to usher in a permanent Democrat majority. The disgust from the base will be so widespread that it’ll be 2006 and 2008 all over again.

Doughboy on March 20, 2013 at 4:47 PM

That sounds about right. I’d expect a narrow win for the Dems in 2014 due to the base walking away and a complete, tsunami-like wipeout in 2016 as those 30 million new Democrat voters start coming online.

I don’t like how conservatives make an issue on how new immigrants will vote once given citizenship. Either you think comprehensive immigration is good or bad policy. I can respect people on both sides of the issue. I don’t appreciate people who taking policy stances purely out politics.

That sounds about right. I’d expect a narrow win for the Dems in 2014 due to the base walking away and a complete, tsunami-like wipeout in 2016 as those 30 million new Democrat voters start coming online.

Doomberg on March 20, 2013 at 4:54 PM

And imagine all those newly legalized citizens coming along just as Obamacare goes into full effect. Honestly, the election in 2016 would be irrelevant at that point cuz the entire system will be on the verge of collapse.

A major problem is we’re not giving immigrants any reason to immigrate legally. Why come here legally and work your bottom and pay taxes when you can come here illegally? There are no negative repercussions for coming here illegally, our government bends over backwards for illegals.

After securing the border, what we should do is make it as hard as possible for someone that at one point immigrated here illegally instead of bending over backwards for them. Nobody that Immigrated here illegally should be eligible to vote or eligible for government assistance. If they are willing to be productive members of society and assimilate into American culture then good for them. I think many would self-deport without the promise of government assistance.

I don’t like how conservatives make an issue on how new immigrants will vote once given citizenship. Either you think comprehensive immigration is good or bad policy. I can respect people on both sides of the issue. I don’t appreciate people who taking policy stances purely out politics.

terryannonline on March 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

I think it’s bad policy in no small part BECAUSE anyone with half a brain(which apparently doesn’t include Republican politicians and their advisers) knows damn well how 75-80% of these new citizens will vote. If these 12-20 million illegals want so badly to live here legally and out in the open, then let them go through the proper channels.

This is nothing more than a power play by DC. For the Dems, it gets them more voters who will be dependent on the government dole. And for the GOP, it’s cheap labor for their big business cronies and a pathetic attempt at pandering to Latinos who’ll never vote for them anyway.

The sad fact of the matter is, the Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The base will kill them for compromising or rolling over. The Dems and the illegals will continue to castigate the
Right, regardless of what they do.

Everyone should simply walk away and leave things as they are.

The government can continue its sophistry in enforcing the law, or not enforcing it. republicans will have just as much support from Latinos as they would with granting amnesty which is to say, very little.

Will this minor issue of the Path to Citizenship end with the requirement to renounce their citizenship from their birth country so they will become 100% Americans?

Or, do the millions of ILLEGALS get to become Dual-Citizens with divided loyalty between the U.S. and their birth country, who will then have the right to cancel out the votes of 100% Americans in every future election that includes an immigration issue?

I don’t like how conservatives make an issue on how new immigrants will vote once given citizenship. Either you think comprehensive immigration is good or bad policy. I can respect people on both sides of the issue. I don’t appreciate people who taking policy stances purely out politics.

terryannonline on March 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Agreed there. This really needed to get done in 2007. Although I do think that it’ll help Republicans clean up their image in the Latino communities.

As for why the Republican Study Group is suddenly in favor of immigration reform, apparently Ryan has twisted enough arms in the House to get the votes that the Rs need for the bill.

In a sharply worded statement Wednesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said his committee will not make its deadline of considering a comprehensive immigration reform bill by the end of April. Abandoning hopes for a quick agreement on the issue, Leahy said, “This process will take time. It will not be easy.”

Directing criticism at the White House, the so-called Gang of 8, and, to a lesser extent, Republicans, Leahy said he has tried to make reform the top priority of the Judiciary Committee. But no one else has gone along.

“For months I have urged the president to send his proposal for comprehensive immigration reform to the Senate,” Leahy said. “I understand he has delayed releasing it at the request of a few senators who are engaged in secret, closed door discussions on their own proposal and who committed to completing it by the beginning of March. That deadline and others have come and gone.”

I don’t like how conservatives make an issue on how new immigrants will vote once given citizenship. Either you think comprehensive immigration is good or bad policy. I can respect people on both sides of the issue. I don’t appreciate people who taking policy stances purely out politics.

terryannonline on March 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

I understand your position, but I try to point out which way they will vote because it seems like there are quite a few people who haven’t really thought about the political ramifications. Pointing out the likelihood of how they’ll vote is usually the simplest way to drive home what will happen when they are legalized. Texas, without question, will turn immediately purple, maybe even blue.

But if you want me to talk about problems other than how they’ll vote, another major problem is that due to the shrinking job universe, most of them will end up on varying levels of welfare. That will mean either more tax increases or more printing of money by the Feds in order to pay for it. Also, if they turn the map blue, any last, desperate hope for a solution to our debt and spending problems is gone forever.

Then there are the cultural problems of absorbing around 30 million immigrants (which is equivalent to about nine percent of our existing population) who cannot speak the language and who have been raised to expect crade-to-grave socialism in a time when the country is facing economic collapse.

. And for the GOP, it’s cheap labor for their big business cronies and a pathetic attempt at pandering to Latinos who’ll never vote for them anyway.

Doughboy on March 20, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Not buying that line of thought about big business cronies and the GOP. I’d bet there are more small business folks using illegal aliens and they are not all members of the GOP. The very progressive U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pushing for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, along with a few progressive Republicans and most Democrats of the progressive persuasion.

I don’t like how conservatives make an issue on how new immigrants will vote once given citizenship. Either you think comprehensive immigration is good or bad policy. I can respect people on both sides of the issue. I don’t appreciate people who taking policy stances purely out politics.

terryannonline on March 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

If you think Dem policies are bad for America, then logically, anything which creates more Dem voters is bad policy.

I understand your position, but I try to point out which way they will vote because it seems like there are quite a few people who haven’t really thought about the political ramifications. Pointing out the likelihood of how they’ll vote is usually the simplest way to drive home what will happen when they are legalized. Texas, without question, will turn immediately purple, maybe even blue.

But if you want me to talk about problems other than how they’ll vote, another major problem is that due to the shrinking job universe, most of them will end up on varying levels of welfare. That will mean either more tax increases or more printing of money by the Feds in order to pay for it. Also, if they turn the map blue, any last, desperate hope for a solution to our debt and spending problems is gone forever.

Then there are the cultural problems of absorbing around 30 million immigrants (which is equivalent to about nine percent of our existing population) who cannot speak the language and who have been raised to expect crade-to-grave socialism in a time when the country is facing economic collapse.

As I posted on another thread, conservatives should stop using the terminology of the left.

Illegal alien is a status, not a slur against Hispanics. Use it to describe those who are not resident aliens because it is far more accurate than “undocumented migrants.” Somehow these people have found the way to documents to vote (illegally), find work, and otherwise function in a society where it is implausible that somebody can exist without documents.

Secondly, it is not a “path to citizenship” or “earned citizenship.” It is a proposal to grant amnesty to one group who ignore our laws by doing harm to those who are seeking citizenship the old-fashioned way- legally.

The GOP may not be able to stop the amnesty-train, but they should at least try to increase immigrantion from countries that understand socialist oppression…we need more people from Eastern Europe and Asia to balance things out.

“For months I have urged the president to send his proposal for comprehensive immigration reform to the Senate,” Leahy said. “I understand he has delayed releasing it at the request of a few senators who are engaged in secret, closed door discussions on their own proposal and who committed to completing it by the beginning of March. That deadline and others have come and gone.”

Resist We Much on March 20, 2013 at 5:06 PM

The Presidents proposal is: Set my people free. Isn’t that what all Gods want.

The GOP may not be able to stop the amnesty-train, but they should at least try to increase immigrantion from countries that understand socialist oppression…we need more people from Eastern Europe and Asia to balance things out.

Ettanin on March 20, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Any Californian can confirm that we do not have a shortage of immigrants from Asia.

In fact, California is leading the way with a new tourism trend:

Now, a growing number of pregnant Chinese women are flying to the U.S. to secure their child that prized U.S. birth certificate, and Southern California has become a hot bed of what’s called “birth tourism.”

Not buying that line of thought about big business cronies and the GOP. I’d bet there are more small business folks…

tomshup on March 20, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Hate to break it to you Tom but in the last Texas legislative session, which is dominated by Repubs, the bill to end sanctuary city policies was defeated by the GOP. Texas State Sen. Tommy Williams, R-Woodlands was big in it and barely survived his primary but he did. He was trying to protect Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio who lost his seat. The biggest GOP donors backing this were HEB Grocery and Rerry Homes (Bob Perry).

I wrote a letter to HEB asking why they took this stand. The response was straight out of the democrat talking points (uniting families, they only want to work, etc.) To this day we don’t shop HEB.

I don’t like how conservatives make an issue on how new immigrants will vote once given citizenship. Either you think comprehensive immigration is good or bad policy. I can respect people on both sides of the issue. I don’t appreciate people who taking policy stances purely out politics.

terryannonline

Says the person who refers to amnesty as comprehensive immigration because that’s the focus group tested political thing to do.

Shouldn’t the “L.I.B.” crowd be supporters of immigration reform? It’s a win-win for them. Either it is a success and Republicans can move past the immigration debate or it is a loss and America turns into California. What am I missing?

Shouldn’t the “L.I.B.” crowd be supporters of immigration reform? It’s a win-win for them. Either it is a success and Republicans can move past the immigration debate or it is a loss and America turns into California. What am I missing?

Saying that anyone caught entering the country illegally from the day the reform bill is signed will never, ever be granted legal residency of any sort would go a long way toward getting conservatives on board. From that day forward, violating US immigration laws should mean a lifetime ban on immigrating here, as well as committing any felony while a legal visitor.

Shouldn’t the “L.I.B.” crowd be supporters of immigration reform? It’s a win-win for them. Either it is a success and Republicans can move past the immigration debate or it is a loss and America turns into California. What am I missing?

rndmusrnm

A lot, apparently.

xblade on March 20, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Well, please, continue. Oh you were finished? Well then allow me to retort. What does Marcellus Wallace look like?

Granting them legal status and then letting them apply for a green card in the future through normal channels is very much on the table.

And there’s the problem. Rand was on Cavuto today and was saying something about giving illegals say two years to apply for a green card or citizenship. He was very good at emphasizing that they would have to get at the end of the line.

However, no one has asked Rand what would happen to those that don’t comply? What’s the penalty for not even attempting to go through these channels? Will they be deported after the time period for them to comply? How can you deport them when we’re always being told you can’t do that now? Will illegals still be able to collect all those government benefits while waiting in line? What about those who don’t apply, will their benefits be cut off?

Wren, you missed the point of my post. I wasn’t recommending we import more Chinese. I was actually more referring to Indians. I’m simply saying the Dems are playing ruthless power politics by importing more and more voters who like big corrupt government. Unless the Repubs play the same game, they’re doomed. Reagan’s amnesty turned California deep blue. A new amnesty would turn Texas purple and effect the entire southwest.

And imagine all those newly legalized citizens coming along just as Obamacare goes into full effect. Honestly, the election in 2016 would be irrelevant at that point cuz the entire system will be on the verge of collapse.

Doughboy on March 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM

This is a huge problem, and one that the politicians pushing amnesty are either ignoring, or lying about.

Obamacare explicitly provides that any person “lawfully present” in the U.S. is entitled to claim health insurance subsidies if they meet the income requirements. There is no requirement that the person be a citizen, or a green card holder. So as soon as the illegal aliens receive their new visas, no matter what those visas are called, they are “lawfully present” in the U.S. and can apply for Obamacare subsidies.

The IRS estimates that the cheapest qualifying health insurance under Obamacare for a family of four will be $20,000 per year. How many illegal alien (or, newly legalized immigrant) families are likely to be able to afford that?

But hey, we’re only $16 Trillion in debt now, with another $100 Trillion or so in unfunded future liabilities. What’s a few more Trillion in debt going to matter at this point, right? What really matters is that we sign up more Democrat voters. Destroying the dollar and crashing the economy is clearly one of those “minor” issues we need not concern ourselves with.

If the House GOP passes an amnesty bill(and let’s be honest, that’s exactly what it will be), then kiss that chamber of Congress goodbye in 2014. They don’t even have to wait a decade for those new legal Latino voters to usher in a permanent Democrat majority. The disgust from the base will be so widespread that it’ll be 2006 and 2008 all over again.

Doughboy on March 20, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Triple dittos!!

I held my nose in 2008 and symbolically voted for Palin, NOT McCain.

If the GOP accommodates illegal aliens in ANY WAY, I am gone forever. American citizenship will have been rendered valueless by the GOP.

Why this crazy rush for amnesty by the GOP? Do they think the vast majority of Hispanic-American citizens (the only ones who should be voting) demand amnesty for illegal aliens? WRONG!!

Do these GOP idiots think a policy of rewarding the criminals (illegal aliens in this case) with their ill-gotten goods (residency in this case) will EVER reduce the crime rate (illegal border crossings) ?

Are they stupid?

Are they (misguidedly) so desperate for votes and political power that they insult every LEGAL immigrant who has waited years to become a citizen? Yup. A pox on all of them.

The GOP should be appealing to the the 40% of Hispanic-Americans who respect our laws and KEEP the GOP base (even energize it!) instead of trying to out-pander the Democrats while chasing after the 54% (who are ALREADY DEMOCRATS!!) and LOSE the GOP base.